Red/Green Skjutland poll

General discussion about Life is Feudal MMO and Life is Feudal: Your Own, The main section and backbone of the forums.

Ronka
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 21 Feb 2018, 13:48

Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Ronka » 10 Sep 2018, 15:25

Dear Devs, Dear all,

I am pretty confused about the results of the poll concerning the Red/Green future of Skjultland. When I got able to vote, I (and a lot of friends too) only had the choice between Red and Green. But now, it suddenly appears that some players voted in favor of some kind of orange in-between.

I assume it has something to do with the extension of the poll with one additional week and that people who voted during the second week had the opportunity to choose among three possibilities while people who voted during the first week could choose between red and green only. I checked it on my dashboard during the second week thinking that the poll would be completely renewed considering the alleged issues encountered during the first week but couldn’t find a way to cast a new vote… meaning that my vote got either kept as it was or not taken into account.

If you confirm that people who did vote during the first week did not have the same choices as those who voted during the second week, I’d say that it would be fair to completely redo the poll.

As far as I am concerned, I would have been more than happy to have the choice to vote in favor of something in-between since I trust Skjultland remaining green will sooner or later see its community vanish and I know for sure that a large number of my in-game companions would have been happy to vote in favor of the “orange in-between” too but couldn’t because they voted during the first week.

No criticism here, just a question but I believe it really matters for a lot of us to be able to participate in the development of Skjultland.

By the way, sorry if someone already asked the question about this. I did not go through all the recent posts.

User avatar
WestArcher
 
Posts: 121
Joined: 02 Jul 2016, 17:04

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by WestArcher » 10 Sep 2018, 15:48

One of the problems with polls is the people will vote for personal interest and not to improve the game.

If you have a lot of solo/small groups or just guilds that are on the backfoot it's pretty obvious they'll vote to stay green if they cannot reasonably defend their stuff, and vice versa for players voting for red.

Very few people are voting with the health of the game in mind and will vote for what benefits them more.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Sunleader » 11 Sep 2018, 01:15

Ronka wrote:Dear Devs, Dear all,

I am pretty confused about the results of the poll concerning the Red/Green future of Skjultland. When I got able to vote, I (and a lot of friends too) only had the choice between Red and Green. But now, it suddenly appears that some players voted in favor of some kind of orange in-between.

I assume it has something to do with the extension of the poll with one additional week and that people who voted during the second week had the opportunity to choose among three possibilities while people who voted during the first week could choose between red and green only. I checked it on my dashboard during the second week thinking that the poll would be completely renewed considering the alleged issues encountered during the first week but couldn’t find a way to cast a new vote… meaning that my vote got either kept as it was or not taken into account.

If you confirm that people who did vote during the first week did not have the same choices as those who voted during the second week, I’d say that it would be fair to completely redo the poll.

As far as I am concerned, I would have been more than happy to have the choice to vote in favor of something in-between since I trust Skjultland remaining green will sooner or later see its community vanish and I know for sure that a large number of my in-game companions would have been happy to vote in favor of the “orange in-between” too but couldn’t because they voted during the first week.

No criticism here, just a question but I believe it really matters for a lot of us to be able to participate in the development of Skjultland.

By the way, sorry if someone already asked the question about this. I did not go through all the recent posts.


1.
I am not sure how it worked. But I doubt it would make a Difference.
The Majority for Green World was pretty Overwhelming.

The Announcement for the Vote also didnt work in the First Week.
So the vast Majority likely voted in the Second Week.
Meaning that you wouldnt get vastly Different Results if the guys from before were allowed to Vote again.

2.
No Offense Intended but I have a Feeling that the Reason why several Red World Voters complain now and demand a Redo with the Orange thing Excuse is not because they would actually vote for Orange but because they would still Vote for Red while hoping that Green Voters change to Orange to divide the Results.

3.
Orange would be an entirely new System nobody knows beforehand.
So that would not be something that should be voted on anyways.
What sense does a Vote make when nobody knows what this thing they vote for actually is ???

So if Orange Won and ended up being fairly far towards Red you would get Tons of Green Voters as well as Orange Voters that wanted more towards Green complain and demand a Revote again cuz they didnt know it would be an fairly Red Like World.

Vice Versa if Orange won and ended up being fairly far towards Green.

4.
Also its Generally never a Good Idea to Redo a Vote.
Because dont get me Wrong.
But if the New Vote ended up Red you can Guarantee that Green Voters would Rush here to complain that the poll was unfair and that if the others get to Redo the Poll till they get their Vote up then we should Redo the Vote again so the Green Win again.




In the End of the Day.
Guys Seriously.
It wasnt a Close Vote.
There was 60% Green and 20% Red
Get over it.

If this was something like 40% Green and 35% Red with Rest being other Options.
I would have Understood the Idea of a Redo of the Poll.
Even tough I would have Disagreed then as well.

But it wasnt Close.
It was Overwhelming for Green.



You want to Play Red.
Go to a Red World.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Sunleader » 11 Sep 2018, 01:23

WestArcher wrote:One of the problems with polls is the people will vote for personal interest and not to improve the game.

If you have a lot of solo/small groups or just guilds that are on the backfoot it's pretty obvious they'll vote to stay green if they cannot reasonably defend their stuff, and vice versa for players voting for red.

Very few people are voting with the health of the game in mind and will vote for what benefits them more.



In a Sense that is Beneficial for the Game tough.
Dont get me wrong.

But Players will usually want to have the Game to their Taste.
And we got 60% Voting Green.
Now lets assume Skjult would become Red.
You can take bets these 60% would for most Part either move to Elpland or Quit the Game entirely.



In General I think this Result is the Best we can get for the Game.
Because if Skjult had become Red.

There is honestly just 2 Scenarios.

1.
All the People that wanted Green World either Migrate or Quit.
Losing us a Ton of Players in the Process and Killing Skjultland for Good as it would lose about Half of its Playerbase.

And pls dont come me with the Dream that if Skjult became Red we would Magically get lots of New Players. If that would work they would all have Joined Avalon already.

2.
The Above happens but alot of Avalon Players Leave Avalon and Join Skjult to grab Land in a less Competed Enviornment.

Then it would benefit Skjult as it might become more Active.
But would be very Detrimental to the Game.
Because Avalons Population would Drop tremendously and we would sit there with two Red Servers which each got a little more than Half the Population that Avalon got now.

Thus having less PvP and less Wars and being Boring again.






A Red Server is a PvP Server.
It flourishes from having Wars and PvP.
And for this the more Concentrated you got the Playerbase the Better.
Meaning that having only One PvP Server is Honestly said the Best Option you can Have.
Because that means that everyone Seeking Wars and PvP knows exactly where to go rather than splitting up.

PvE Players dont care about other Players that much.
Thats why they can be Perfectly Happy with being far less People.

User avatar
WestArcher
 
Posts: 121
Joined: 02 Jul 2016, 17:04

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by WestArcher » 11 Sep 2018, 04:49

Sunleader wrote:PvE Players dont care about other Players that much.
Thats why they can be Perfectly Happy with being far less People.


This is exactly what I was referring to in my original post.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Care to remind me what MMO stands for?


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Sunleader » 11 Sep 2018, 10:41

WestArcher wrote:
Sunleader wrote:PvE Players dont care about other Players that much.
Thats why they can be Perfectly Happy with being far less People.


This is exactly what I was referring to in my original post.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Care to remind me what MMO stands for?


So Basicly your claiming that it would be Beneficial to the Game and not related to your Personal Preference that we should have as many People as Possible on one Server ? :)

Dont you think that you yourself are passing your own Personal Preference there ? :)


MMO Stands for Mass Multiplayer Online.
Now dont get me wrong.
But I dont give a Damn about your Personal Preference on what Constitutes an MMO.
But for me having about 150 Average Online Players on a Server is enough to call it an MMO.
And if I get 3000 Active Players by having 3 Servers with 1000 each. (Average Online of 200 per Server)

I would claim that this is more Beneficial to the Game than having 1 Server which has 2000 Active Players alone :)

User avatar
Monco
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 28 Oct 2017, 19:33

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Monco » 11 Sep 2018, 14:56

Sunleader wrote:
So Basicly your claiming that it would be Beneficial to the Game and not related to your Personal Preference that we should have as many People as Possible on one Server ? :)

Dont you think that you yourself are passing your own Personal Preference there ? :)


MMO Stands for Mass Multiplayer Online.
Now dont get me wrong.
But I dont give a Damn about your Personal Preference on what Constitutes an MMO.
But for me having about 150 Average Online Players on a Server is enough to call it an MMO.
And if I get 3000 Active Players by having 3 Servers with 1000 each. (Average Online of 200 per Server)

I would claim that this is more Beneficial to the Game than having 1 Server which has 2000 Active Players alone :)


I can't stand the level of absolute retardation so I have to reply, for some time I tried to ignore most of your posts but I just can't anymore.

You say that having about 150 average online players in a server would be enough to call that an MMO.
Ok so I guess Rust is an MMO, Mount and Blade is an MMO, Arma is an MMO... the list can go on it's just examples.

If an ENTIRELY PLAYER DECISION DRIVEN MMO like Life is Feudal MMO with a map which was designed to have up to 10000 players has 150 players, then that's not an MMO, that's a DEAD MMO, or like Bobik liked to say it's a "MO", an MMO which has lost the most important part about of it "massive amounts of players".

What is Life is Feudal MMO without players? What is a sandbox MMO entirely shaped and decided by players without players?
If you believe that 150 players would be enough for a game like this one you are a retard, I can't find any "weaker or softer" word to describe what you just said, and if you feel offended by it so be it.

Another completely retarded statement "I would prefer having 3 servers with 1k players each, then 1 server with 2k players".

Again, in an entirely player decision driven sandbox MMO what is more important is the amount of players playing it because "content" relies on them, if a server has less players then another one it's more likely that it would have less content, because that's entirely up to players.

I wonder why so many people from Buyan are migrating to Avalon, well maybe because their server was getting empty?
They're actually paying to play in a server with worse ping just because it has more players thus allowing for more content, and more gameplay options.

You said it yourself that MMO stands for massive(ly) multiplayer online, if you remove the "massive(ly)" part there is no MMO, and there is no need for Life is Feudal MMO, we might aswell play Life is Feudal: Your Own.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Sunleader » 11 Sep 2018, 16:33

Monco wrote:
Sunleader wrote:
So Basicly your claiming that it would be Beneficial to the Game and not related to your Personal Preference that we should have as many People as Possible on one Server ? :)

Dont you think that you yourself are passing your own Personal Preference there ? :)


MMO Stands for Mass Multiplayer Online.
Now dont get me wrong.
But I dont give a Damn about your Personal Preference on what Constitutes an MMO.
But for me having about 150 Average Online Players on a Server is enough to call it an MMO.
And if I get 3000 Active Players by having 3 Servers with 1000 each. (Average Online of 200 per Server)

I would claim that this is more Beneficial to the Game than having 1 Server which has 2000 Active Players alone :)


I can't stand the level of absolute retardation so I have to reply, for some time I tried to ignore most of your posts but I just can't anymore.

You say that having about 150 average online players in a server would be enough to call that an MMO.
Ok so I guess Rust is an MMO, Mount and Blade is an MMO, Arma is an MMO... the list can go on it's just examples.

If an ENTIRELY PLAYER DECISION DRIVEN MMO like Life is Feudal MMO with a map which was designed to have up to 10000 players has 150 players, then that's not an MMO, that's a DEAD MMO, or like Bobik liked to say it's a "MO", an MMO which has lost the most important part about of it "massive amounts of players".

What is Life is Feudal MMO without players? What is a sandbox MMO entirely shaped and decided by players without players?
If you believe that 150 players would be enough for a game like this one you are a retard, I can't find any "weaker or softer" word to describe what you just said, and if you feel offended by it so be it.

Another completely retarded statement "I would prefer having 3 servers with 1k players each, then 1 server with 2k players".

Again, in an entirely player decision driven sandbox MMO what is more important is the amount of players playing it because "content" relies on them, if a server has less players then another one it's more likely that it would have less content, because that's entirely up to players.

I wonder why so many people from Buyan are migrating to Avalon, well maybe because their server was getting empty?
They're actually paying to play in a server with worse ping just because it has more players thus allowing for more content, and more gameplay options.

You said it yourself that MMO stands for massive(ly) multiplayer online, if you remove the "massive(ly)" part there is no MMO, and there is no need for Life is Feudal MMO, we might aswell play Life is Feudal: Your Own.


Ah. I wondered about the lack of Idiotic and Ignorant Posts Aimed at me.
So thats why it was so calm lately.


1.
Title: Rust
Genre: Action, Adventure, Indie, Massively Multiplayer, RPG
Developer: Facepunch Studios
Publisher: Facepunch Studios
Release Date: 8 Feb, 2018

Mount and Blade is a Single Player Game.
It doesnt have 150 People sharing a World.

And ARMA is Match Based. The World Resets after each Match.

As usual your Examples of Games are complete Bullcrab and dont fit the Description at all.



2.
A Multiplayer World Designed for 10k Players doesnt mean it needs to have 10k Players Online in Average.
10k Players Online in Average means you got way nearly 100k Active Players.

A Server with 10k Players would likely Average at around 1k Players.
2k if its got a High Ratio of Hardcore Gamers that Spend like 5-6 Hours in the Game each Day.



3.
Well Mate. I would guess its a Sandbox Game.

And dont worry.
I generally dont Feel Offended by Retarded Statements no matter what they say about me.
If I were to feel Offended every time someone talked like an Idiot I wouldnt be able to leave the House anymore.


4.
I told you a few times before.
But your Ignorance on People having Different Wishes and Tastes of what they like in a Game is astonishing.

Maybe for you this Game is all about the players.
But to many of the PvE players this Game is mostly about Building their Castles and Farming and Crafting.

They couldnt care less about wether or not the remaining Map is Populated by 10 or 1000 Players.

In Fact they will like to have fairly Few Players around so they have more Space to themselves.

Just because YOU feel like the Game should be Overflowing with PvP everywhere 25 Hours a Day 8 Days a Week doesnt mean that others would like it.



5.
Thats Correct.
And thats Perfectly Reasonable for a RED SERVER.
Because you see this Server is Made for People like who want to have lots of PvP all Day and thus want to have a Large Population at all times.

But Skjutland is not a Red Server.
Its a Green Server.

The People Choosing this Server over Avalon do so because they DONT WANT to be constantly in Danger of being Attacked by others.


6.
Sorry but I cant Host a Server that would hold 150 Players Average in Your Own.
And I dont have a Map of this Size available either.

So yeah as usual your comparisons are stupid and ignorant of reality.

User avatar
Monco
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 28 Oct 2017, 19:33

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Monco » 11 Sep 2018, 17:55

Sunleader wrote:
1.
Title: Rust
Genre: Action, Adventure, Indie, Massively Multiplayer, RPG
Developer: Facepunch Studios
Publisher: Facepunch Studios
Release Date: 8 Feb, 2018

https://rust.facepunch.com/presskit/
Where do you see MMO? And this is taken from the official rust website
https://store.steampowered.com/app/252490/Rust/
Check steam too, no "Massively Multiplayer" or MMO tag anywhere.
I told you multiple times you shouldn't speak about things you don't know or games you don't play, you just end up shaming yourself.

Sunleader wrote:Mount and Blade is a Single Player Game.
It doesnt have 150 People sharing a World.

Again don't speak if you don't know the game or the subject, Mount and blade is not only a single player game, it has a multiplayer mode and has servers which can have even up to 200 people in them.

Sunleader wrote:And ARMA is Match Based. The World Resets after each Match.

As usual your Examples of Games are complete Bullcrab and dont fit the Description at all.

I listed those games and I could list a lot more simply because of your completely retarded statement "But for me having about 150 Average Online Players on a Server is enough to call it an MMO."
ARMA has servers which can handle up to 200 / 230 players and the game also has different "mods" which allow for different types of gameplay, it's not only Match based, again you speak about thing you don't know and you just shame yourself.

Sunleader wrote:4.
I told you a few times before.
But your Ignorance on People having Different Wishes and Tastes of what they like in a Game is astonishing.

Maybe for you this Game is all about the players.
But to many of the PvE players this Game is mostly about Building their Castles and Farming and Crafting.

They couldnt care less about wether or not the remaining Map is Populated by 10 or 1000 Players.

In Fact they will like to have fairly Few Players around so they have more Space to themselves.

Just because YOU feel like the Game should be Overflowing with PvP everywhere 25 Hours a Day 8 Days a Week doesnt mean that others would like it.

The game is literally all about players, it's a COMPLETELY PLAYER DECISION DRIVEN SANDBOX MMORPG, no players no game it's as simple as that.

The PvE players you speak about don't need an MMO to fulfill their playstyle, they can play Life is Feudal: Your Own and have the same experience, if they don't care about other people, don't want to interact with people they don't know and they only play the game to "build their castle" I don't see why they would need an MMO, especially an open world player decision driven one.

If they don't care about population in an MMO it means they don't care if the game is an MMO or not so it would be the same for them to play a "smaller" version of the game which is Life is Feudal: Your Own.

I do feel that the game should have more PvP in general simply because that's currently the game "driver", player interactions rotate around it for the most part.
Now would PvP be the best general "game driver" for this game? Probably not, and not even RolePlay, or "castle building simulator" as you say. In my opinion a strong and properly working Economy would be the best choice, to make everything rotate around it.
Economy would be the perfect "backbone" of this MMO, but to have a properly working one is not an easy task.

Also players with different "tastes" as you say or playstyles I would say shouldn't be segregated, that's where the game went wrong, an MMO which is entirely concentrated around players and aims to segregate its already not big enough population doesn't seem right in the first place.

In their original view or "plan" they were aiming for 1 server in EU and 1 server in NA, the fact that we have so many different servers now is only a "bandaid" fix to technical limitations, that's why in the AMA Bobik spoke about a new map to bring all kind of players together again, because he realised that what they did was wrong and completely against the same game concept, and contributed to its downfall.

Sunleader wrote:5.
Thats Correct.
And thats Perfectly Reasonable for a RED SERVER.
Because you see this Server is Made for People like who want to have lots of PvP all Day and thus want to have a Large Population at all times.

But Skjutland is not a Red Server.
Its a Green Server.

The People Choosing this Server over Avalon do so because they DONT WANT to be constantly in Danger of being Attacked by others.

I'm telling you once again, if players are not concerned about population in an MMO I don't see why they're even playing the MMO version of the game in the first place, they can achieve the same in the "smaller" version of the game, Life is Feudal: Your Own, that game would suit better to their needs.

Having more players doesn't necessarily means that it's more likely to be attacked, it all rotates around the DECISIONS you make, and that's exactly how it should be in a player decision driven open world sandbox mmo.

Decisions you make dictate the way you play the game, you can decide to settle in a remote area, an island, a high mountain, to join the strongest faction to gain protection.
These are just some kind of decisions which i quickly thought about that you CAN make in Life is Feudal MMO and they would pretty much remove or limit as much as possible the risk or danger to be attacked, and you're free to make those decisions, noone is stopping you to do that. That's why we're playing a player decision driven sandbox mmo.

What is wrong is when you decide to play a player decision driven sandbox mmo and you want the game to limit itself so you can whitdraw from making those decisions.

If you get to that point the game concept is completely ruined because you're not playing a completely player decision driven game anymore.

Here https://lifeisfeudal.com/game-info maybe you should read again points about "Sandbox", "MMORPG", and "Hardcore" and reconsider your statement, and ask yourself if you're actually playing the right game, because in my opinion you are not.
Life is Feudal: Your Own would suit you way better.

Sunleader wrote:6.
Sorry but I cant Host a Server that would hold 150 Players Average in Your Own.
And I dont have a Map of this Size available either.

So yeah as usual your comparisons are stupid and ignorant of reality.

If your "goal" is to build a castle and not interact with other players or players you don't know because you're afraid they could "ruin your goal" you should play Life is Feudal: Your Own, because you don't care about the amount of players since you don't want to interact with them.

Can I ask what is that you want from Life is Feudal MMO?
From your statements I assume that you just want to build a castle, farm and craft with your own guild, I don't see why you would need a player decision driven open world sandbox MMO to achieve that goal, your own wuild suit that kind of playstyle way better.
It doesn't mean that you can't do it in the MMO, you can, but you should face the consequences for taking those decisions.

If you wish to build your castle, craft and farm in it, you don't want interact with "unknown" players and don't care if they're there or not, you don't need to have an MMO to experience that, that's why you have the option of your own.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Sunleader » 11 Sep 2018, 20:47

Sigh...

Just so you know. The Description I posted is from the Steam Store Page of Rust.
If you cant even Find that I have to assume your either Blind or Lying on Purpose.
Albeit yeah given your Posts in other Topics I guess your Lying on Purpose to Troll.


Well no matter either way.

I See that your Ignorance has not Changed.
You are still entirely unable to grasp the idea that others could possibly have other Tastes in the Game.
You cant even grasp the idea that Content can be other things that Combat apparently...

Of course with this Idiotic Assumption that Nobody could possibly like different things about the Game you cant help it but think that all Servers being Red would lead to more Players.

Unfortunately the Reality is that Others have other Ideas and on Skjult 60% of the Playerbase dont want a Red World and the vast Majority of them would Leave the Server or even the Game if Skjult became Red.
Turning Skjult into a Dead Server.
The Joke is. The People which wanted it to be Red would then likely have to go to Avalon anyways just like People from Buyan because they simply got nobody left on Skjult.




But oh well.
I am the Idiot for trying to Reason with someone who cant even realize the concept of different Servers to Serve Different Playstyles.
Your still so Stuck in that Idea that your the Only Person in the World and that there cant possibly be anyone expecting different things of the Game or liking different Aspects of the Game.
That nothing I ever say would possibly Connect with you anyways.

Gladly the Devs and Especially Bobik is not as Ignorant as you are and has Realized that some Players like different Aspects of the Game and thus have Seperated the Servers to Cater to both Groups.




As Such.
""
This post was made by Monco who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
""

I wish you Well.

User avatar
WestArcher
 
Posts: 121
Joined: 02 Jul 2016, 17:04

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by WestArcher » 11 Sep 2018, 22:28

Honestly I was going to make a reply but Monco covered everything I was going to say.
Thanks man, I pretty much agree with all of that. Saves me the trouble of writing it out myself.

This game has strayed so far away from its original vision it's no wonder so many people are gone.
Way too many people with the mentality that the game should protect them from other players because they just want to build a little castle by themselves with their group of ~2+. At that point what's the point of the MMO.
Granted there is no such thing as an economy at the moment but the point still stands.

Hell I'm from Buyan myself and I'm playing on Avalon now too now as I got completely sick of the world being empty of players but full of bases that people only log on to put coins in, I crave player interaction in an mmo and it's been pretty fun so far.

Playing back into my original post, this is why polls are not so good of an idea. No matter what people are going to vote in their best interest as far as their position in game goes and not what they think is healthiest for the game.
Even if you had a huge guild that was very pvp centric but they're losing a war, do you think they're going to vote for more JH or Red world? The same line of thought goes for all these little groups of a few people, do you think they're going to vote against their position in game despite what they may think about what's healthiest for the game? Not a chance.

Given the whole Red/Green thing has been a failure in my opinion.
it was an interesting idea at first but it just doesn't work at all unfortunately


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Sunleader » 12 Sep 2018, 02:10

WestArcher wrote:Honestly I was going to make a reply but Monco covered everything I was going to say.
Thanks man, I pretty much agree with all of that. Saves me the trouble of writing it out myself.

This game has strayed so far away from its original vision it's no wonder so many people are gone.
Way too many people with the mentality that the game should protect them from other players because they just want to build a little castle by themselves with their group of ~2+. At that point what's the point of the MMO.
Granted there is no such thing as an economy at the moment but the point still stands.

Hell I'm from Buyan myself and I'm playing on Avalon now too now as I got completely sick of the world being empty of players but full of bases that people only log on to put coins in, I crave player interaction in an mmo and it's been pretty fun so far.

Playing back into my original post, this is why polls are not so good of an idea. No matter what people are going to vote in their best interest as far as their position in game goes and not what they think is healthiest for the game.
Even if you had a huge guild that was very pvp centric but they're losing a war, do you think they're going to vote for more JH or Red world? The same line of thought goes for all these little groups of a few people, do you think they're going to vote against their position in game despite what they may think about what's healthiest for the game? Not a chance.

Given the whole Red/Green thing has been a failure in my opinion.
it was an interesting idea at first but it just doesn't work at all unfortunately


In this case the one being least Beneficial to the Game is People like you and Monco.
Because you Try to Force the Game down this Single Lane that fits your Personal preferences.



Just let me ask you this.
But why do you think it would have been Beneficial if Skjult had become Red ?


Do you think that Magically alot of New Players would have come out of Hiding to Play on Skjultland if its Red even if they didnt come back for Avalon ?

Do you think that somehow Magically the PvE Oriented 60% on Skhultland would stay around and Play a Game that isnt Fun to them just because you think that this is how the Game is meant to be ?



The Realistic Scenario here is that if Skjultland had become Red.
Skjult would have Died within a short Time.

Because the PvE Oriented Players would have all Left for Elpland or would have Uninstalled the Game entirely.
Leaving Skjult with like 40% of its small Playerbase.

And then you can Choose between a Bad Scenario and a Worse Scenario.
Because either Skjultland would then be Dead because there would be nobody left Playing there thus what remains of PvPers going to Avalon anyways.
Or Skjultland would Draw Players away from Avalon thus Damaging the Game by decreasing the One Populated PvP Server you got.



Sorry.
But I just dont believe that anyone is really so Stupid to actually believe any of these Scenarios.
Anyone with an IQ just slightly above Body Temperature can See that Skjult becoming a Red World would have been a Death Sentence for that Server. And possibly even Hurt Avalon in the Process.



So the more Likely thing is.
That you didnt Vote in Favor of the Game.
You voted because YOU PERSONALLY think that the Game should be Played more in the Ruleset of Red Worlds.
You voted Red because YOU PERSONALLY want it to be Red.
Even if that means losing 60% of the Playerbase on that Server.





I.ll be Blunt.
Whats Killing this Game is exactly People Like You.
Because People like you cannot Accept the Idea that others could Possibly Enjoy a Different Play Style than you.

You dont care about the Game at all.
All you care for is YOUR Preferences.

And worse than that. Your entirely and absolutely Ignorant about it that others have a Different Idea of what the Game should be like and Enjoy entirely Different Things than you.

Thats why if you could.
You would Close all Green Servers and only have a Single Red Server.
Even if that Meant that 80% of the other Servers Population Uninstalled the Game.
You would do it.
Because the 20% coming to that one Server YOU care for is more Importand to you than the Game :)


So pls dont Pretend that your trying to Safe the Game.
All your doing is attempting to Force Players towards the Game Preferences that you Personally think are right.
Even if it means Ruining the Game for the vast Majority of the Remaining Players.

Thats why you would rather have 1 Red Server with 700 People than 1 Red and 2 Green Servers with 500 People each.




Sorry for being Rude.
But its been a while that I read that much Hypocrisy.

User avatar
WestArcher
 
Posts: 121
Joined: 02 Jul 2016, 17:04

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by WestArcher » 12 Sep 2018, 02:59

Sunleader wrote:Because you Try to Force the Game down this Single Lane that fits your Personal preferences.

Aren't you doing exactly the same thing?
Besides I thought that was exactly what you wanted, aren't you the one whom is being hypocritical?
Sunleader wrote:PvE Players dont care about other Players that much.
Thats why they can be Perfectly Happy with being far less People.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Sunleader » 12 Sep 2018, 03:23

WestArcher wrote:
Sunleader wrote:Because you Try to Force the Game down this Single Lane that fits your Personal preferences.

Aren't you doing exactly the same thing?
Besides I thought that was exactly what you wanted, aren't you the one whom is being hypocritical?
Sunleader wrote:PvE Players dont care about other Players that much.
Thats why they can be Perfectly Happy with being far less People.


Nope. There is Two Importand Differences here.

The 1. Difference is.
Your claiming to do it in Favor of the Game even if its just for your Personal preferences.
Thats why your a Hypocrite
I never claimed to be doing it in favor of the Game. I from the get go as you Quoted said pretty clearly what I care for.
It in this case being in Favor of the Games Health is just a Bonus on my Side :)
Thats why I am not a Hypocrite like you.


The 2. Difference is
YOU are Trying to Destroy other Peoples Fun by having their Servers Converted and Killed. Just so you might get a few of the Leftover Players for your Playstyle.
Meanwhile I am not trying to take Avalon or Away or make it Green.
In Opposite. Despite it not being a Playstyle I like I have spoken out for this System several Times.
Because unlike you I do not Deny other Peoples Playstyles and try to Force everyone onto my own Playstyle.
Thats why I am not doing the same as you.
Unlike you I am not causing Damages to the Game just to Suite my Taste.

User avatar
Monco
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 28 Oct 2017, 19:33

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Monco » 17 Sep 2018, 17:02

Sunleader wrote:Bunch of useless carebear crap that noone cares about and made himself a joke in the whole forum and community


Sunleader you simply don't get the fact that the game being an open world sandbox entirely decided by players' decisions is damaged each time it gets limited, if you make the game decide instead of players the game loses its purpose and also "possible" content.

You say people like me and Westarcher are those who want to enforce a type of gameplay to others while in fact it's the total opposite, it's those who want the game to limit itself so that they can whitdraw from taking decisions which actually enforce a type of gameplay because they want the game to NEGATE the possibility of such gameplay.

People like me want the game to be more free, to be entirely up to players as from original concept thus allowing for EVERY type of gameplay.
We want players to make decisions, not the game to decide for players, not the game to limit itself to give players opportunities to WHITDRAW from taking decisions WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES.

The game is an open world sandbox entirely decided by players, each decision should face a consequence.

You decide to play in a certain way, to join a certain faction, to build in an island, on a mountain or in a "dangerzone"; you face consequences.

That's why the game should be as less limited as possible, IF certain layers of protection have to be implemented to sustain an healthy game and gameplay in the long term they should be as minor as possible.

If you make the game decide and intervene instead of players the result is that players' decisions become less impactful and may become even useless in some cases.

Easy example: Epleland.
Epleland is an abomination to the original game concept. It's the most limited server (due to his massive layers of protection) and the most exploited one (due to the same layers of protaction).
That's where you can have an enforced type of gameplay because the game is limited, it does NOT ALLOW for a certain type of gameplay.

You simply can't have an enforced type of game or gameplay in a free environment, because that environment itself allows for all types of gameplay. It's simple logic.

While on the other hand if that environment isn't free and does not allow for certain types of gameplay that's where you can have enforced types of gameplay, simply because that environment or "game" does not allow you to play in a certain way.

Easy examples and comparisons between Avalon and Epleland.

I want to be a farmer.

Avalon ---> I can
Epleland ---> I can

I want to roleplay

Avalon ---> I can
Epleland ---> I can

I want to be in a 5 man guild and become kang n shiet

Avalon ---> I can
Epleland ---> I can

I want to siege.

Avalon ---> I can
Epleland ---> I CAN'T

I want to scale the walls of my enemy

Avalon ---> I can
Epleland ---> I CAN'T

I want to enter the town claim of my enemy

Avalon ---> I can
Epleland ---> I CAN'T

Now you tell me which server is the one that is enforcing a type of gameplay the most? Which server does not allow for a certain type of gameplay?

Even Avalon still has some limitations and that's why most players want it to be even more free.

These are simple examples which tells you that limiting the power of players' decisions in an entirely player decision driven sandbox mmo simply does not work and can only end up damaging the game itself.

More complex examples:

Politics, factions and coalitions.

Avalon ---> Important and literally change and shape the gameplay of entire guilds
Epleland ---> Useless since players can decide to whitdraw from taking part in those without facing big consequences

Territorial control.

Avalon ---> Possible
Epleland ---> Impossible

Consequences of players' decisions.

Avalon ---> Big, I have to decide wisely and I can't afford to provocate if I'm not in a position of power, but the game still allows me to do it.
Epleland ---> Very small, I can withdraw from taking decisions since the game decides for me in some cases and protects me, I can afford to provocate whoever and whenever because I'll never face big consequences regardless of my decisions.

Regarding the Skjutland poll I didn't even vote since I do not play there, and I do not care if the server would be green or red.
I would actually prefer if that server would be closed, with Iriy and Epleland aswell (even Avalon, the important fact is to have 1 server for everyone that allows for ALL types of gameplay without stupid limitations and overprotective game mechanics) and we would return to the original game's concept.

Anyways that's what bobik spoke about in the AMA, we'll be very likely to see a new bigger map in the future to try and have all players in one server and return to the original game's concept which has been twisted and has at this point completely fallen.

Sunleader wrote:Thats why I am not a Hypocrite like you.

Because unlike you I do not Deny other Peoples Playstyles and try to Force everyone onto my own Playstyle.
Thats why I am not doing the same as you.
Unlike you I am not causing Damages to the Game just to Suite my Taste.



Sunleader the only hypocrite here is you, you want the game to limit itself and have massive layers of protections to make your playstyle easier while completely denying another one.
You are literally trying to force people onto one playstyle and trying to have the game to ONLY suit your taste.

You want players' decisions to have no impact and as less consequences as possible in a player decision driven sandbox mmo, you want to "remove sand from the box" because you don't want a certain type of gameplay to be allowed by the game itself.

I'm telling you once again, are you sure you're playing the correct game? If you want enforced gameplay you should play Life is Feudal: Your Own, there you can have enforced gameplay to suit your taste, you can't have it in a player decision driven MMO or you lose the same concept of the game.

People like me want the game to be more free, to have players' decisions to actually mean something, we don't want to enforce or deny any type of gameplay while instead that's literally what you're asking for.


Sunleader
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 08:23

Re: Red/Green Skjutland poll

Post by Sunleader » 18 Sep 2018, 01:45

This post was made by Monco who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Oh look its the RPK/Griefer which wants the ability to Destroy everything and kill everyone without Consequences or restrictions even if it means the Game will Die.

Yeah not reading it.
I can guess you Disagree and likely calling me a carebear again before making some outrageous suggestion to remove all protection even if it kills the Game.

So no need to bother reading it.

Return to General Discussion